MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173390806 · doi:10.32370/ia_2021_06_8

Actual Issues of Forensic Activities in Ukraine and the Possibility of Implementing International Standards of the Industry in the Ukrainian Legislation

2021· article· en· W3173390806 on OpenAlex
Lidiya Kotlyarenko, Nataliia Pavlovska, Eugenia Svoboda, Anatolii Symchuk, Serhii Kharchenko

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntellectual Archive · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUkrainian Legal and Forensic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuropean unionPolitical scienceUkrainianLegislationConventionLawHuman rightsInternational lawEuropean Union lawStandardizationFundamental rightsPopulationBusinessSociologyInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International standards exist in any field of legal regulation however, they are mostly identified with standards that regulate the technical sphere, since they are the most common ones. Nonetheless, today it is hard to imagine any area of public life withno generally recognized international standards. European legal standards are formed within the framework of the two most regional international associations –the Council of Europe and the European Union. The Council of Europe sets, first of all, standards in the humanitarian sphere: human rights, environment protection, and constitutional law, which is determined by the goals and purpose of its functioning. The European Union (hereinafter referred to as the EU) using directives, regulations, and other legal acts sets standards for most areas of the EU population's life. It should be noted it is during the development of 'standardization' in the European law that specific development of public relations in the EU takes place. Defining the EU legal standardas a separate category of norms of the European law, it is noteworthy that this term is used in a broad sense as a 'legal standard' and incorporates such elements as the general principles of the EU law and the 'common values' of the EU –they relate to people, environment, economic issues, and so on. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 is a classic example of their implementation. In a narrow sense, this term has a specific meaning and does not coincidewith the concept of 'legal standard', e.g. these are standards in the technical field that are adopted by the European Committee for Standardization, that is, in its content, it is a technical publication that is used as a norm, rule, guide or definition.Therefore, they relate to products, services, or systems and are the basis for convergence and interaction within the growing market of various business sectors. Today, in international law de facto there is a system of standards that regulate various aspects of international relations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it